Environmental protection is long, hard work, and it usually involves managing complex systems. If politics takes center stage—as it did at this year’s Everglades Coalition conference—then communication breaks down, and systems begin to suffer.
Unlike in previous years, several agencies and state officials that have historically participated in the conference chose not to attend in 2026.
Insider sources noted that the conference environment had shifted from technical coordination to activism and public confrontation. That perception matters.
Agencies attend these gatherings to exchange information, assess risk, develop programs, and maintain working relationships necessary for delivery. Participation in the conference this time around came with reputational risk, which made a clear operational benefit hard to perceive. And now there is division among the ranks.
The immediate issue has been Alligator Alcatraz, a detention facility for illegal aliens in Florida. But public disputes over that development are not a sufficient reason to disengage from sustained coordination on one of the most complex ecological systems in the United States.
The Everglades is an extraordinary ecosystem.
Managing the Everglades encompasses water infrastructure, flood control, and habitat, and the area just so happens to support one of the most densely populated regions in the country. That scale has always required cooperation across institutions that do not share the same politics. Conflict has never been absent, but professionalism has always prevailed.
For many years, the Everglades Conference has been a central node where stakeholders and major political figures alike could gather. Officials attended because it was useful. It allowed agencies to share information and resolve practical problems. After all, this is infrastructure of the utmost importance.
Florida’s recent progress on Everglades restoration shows what happens when conservation sidesteps ideology. Under Gov. Ron DeSantis, the state has assumed greater responsibility for execution. That shift is often described as stepping on the federal government’s toes, but in practice, it has been a great benefit to the region.
Federal environmental law remains essential, but the federal approach has its challenges. Implementation can be slow and vulnerable to disruption. Funding uncertainty, leadership turnover, procedural delays, and litigation all have consequences on the ground. Increasing state responsibility often ensures that work continues when federal systems stall. Environmental problems are deeply regional and geographic, so defaulting to federal control can limit the effectiveness of a solution. When state and federal governments operate deftly together, that’s how you get a durable system.
Florida’s agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accelerate construction of the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir illustrates this balance. That arrangement has taken years off the timeline without abandoning environmental protections. It was practical, not political, and everyone involved made a priority of delivering the goods.
The economic case for this approach is well established.
A historical report prepared by Mather Economics, commissioned by the Everglades Foundation, found that Everglades restoration generates large net economic benefits for South Florida.
The analysis showed billions of dollars in ecosystem services, strong benefit cost ratios, and long-term gains tied to clean water, flood protection, property values, and regional employment.
In economic terms, on top of being an obligation of environmental stewardship, restoration has the added benefit of being a smart infrastructure investment.
It is also notable that the Everglades Trust has publicly credited DeSantis with unprecedented progress on restoration.
In a formal statement following the State of the State address, the Everglades Trust recognized record funding, acceleration of the EAA Reservoir, and nearly $9.5 billion in environmental investment over DeSantis’ two terms.
If there is friction in the political realm, it’s clear that that friction is about politics. But when it comes to what we’re all supposed to really care about—environmental restoration—this coalition chose politics over progress.
I have seen the same institutional logic work elsewhere.
When I worked on HB 2726 in Illinois, the bill advanced because it was built around agreement on function.
No one asked about personal political beliefs or checked ideological alignment. The focus was on moving a complex task forward. The result was the first rewilding framework enacted in the United States and a durable structure for the state Department of Natural Resources to incorporate best practices in restoring wildlife, biodiversity, and protecting native species.
This way of working is not partisan, nor is it new.
Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., frames environmental protection as a matter of stewardship and civic responsibility, following the venerable example of Theodore Roosevelt.
On this matter, he doesn’t have time for an agenda driven culture war.
A useful parallel can be found in the conservation of the Siberian Tiger.
When that effort first took shape, authorities in Russia and China, and later the United States, joined with local park managers and international conservation organizations. Political squabbles and jockeying for position went by the wayside, at least as much as these things can in any human endeavor. The goal was simply to save the species, and it worked out spectacularly.
That same principle should guide the Everglades Coalition conference.
Florida’s governor is openly aligned with President Donald Trump. Florida is one of the country’s most economically and environmentally important states, and the president maintains a residence there. Alignment does not preclude independence or environmental seriousness. Florida has delivered tangible environmental progress by prioritizing execution rather than rhetoric.
If environmental organizations care deeply about advocacy, let them advocate. No one is trying to take that away from them. But there’s a time for advocacy, and there’s a time for clarity of purpose.
When Florida offers a hand of cooperation, let the other players take it. That’s how to achieve lasting conservation, even in the midst of the politics of the moment.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
